SHEW NARAYAN SINGH Vs. BRAHMANAND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this rule briefly ate as follows : The present plaintiffs are the heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff Bishwanath Singh. For the sake of brevity and convenience I shall deal with this rule as if Bishwanath Singh is still alive and shall describe him as the plaintiff.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted a suit in the Court of the Second Subordinate Judge, Hooghly against Ram Narain Singh for damages for breach of contract, alleging that Ram Narain Singh had entered into a contract with him agreeing to supply him with 10 lakhs of manufactured bricks in return for 250 tons of coal which the plaintiff would supply to him. The plaintiff carried out his part of the contract but Ram Narain Singh in collusion with one Bindeswari Singh removed a large number of bricks which were manufactured by Ram Narain Singh for the purposes of the contract. In spite of repeated demands Ram Narain Singh refusel to perform his part of the contract and the plaintiff claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 20,000/-for breach of contract. This was the suit as originally framed. Thereafter the plaintiff applied for attachment before judgment of the bricks and at this stage he came to know that the defendant Bam Narain Singh Bindeswari Prosad Singh, Hazari Singh, Rajen Singh and Thakur Shew Narayan son of Bindewari Prosad had conspired together and pursuant to that conspiracy, Ram Narayan Singh broke the aforesaid contract. Having obtained this knowledge the plaintiff applied to amend his plaint by alleging this conspiracy and by adding Bindeswari Singh Hazari Singh, Rajen Singh and Thakur Shew Narayan as defendants. He amended his claim by claiming Rs. 20,000/- as damages against all the five defendants. The application was rejected by the Subordinate Judge. The plaintiff then moved this Court but did not make the defendants proposed to be added par-ties to this rule. The rule was heard ex parte and made absolute, the amendments were, allowed and the proposed defendants were made defendants 2-5 These defendants then applied to this Court for expunging their names from the record. This Court held that they had no locus standi in the rule as they were not parties at the time when the rule was disposed of and rejected the application. This Court stated that these added defendants were not bound by the order and it was open to them to agitate the matter before the trial Court. This last order was passed by my brother Chunder. The added defendant 2 then applied before the Subordinate Judge for striking out the names of the added defendants. The learned Judge has refused the application stating that no good ground has been made out for striking out the added defendants' names, Against this order the present rule has been obtained by the defendant Thakur Shew Narayan praying that his name and those of the other added defendants be struck out.

(3.) The only question which falls for decision in this rule is whether the plaintiff should be allowed to amend his plaint in the manner stated above and add the petitioner and the other three persons viz., Bindeswari, Hazari Singh and Rajen Singh as defendants in the Suit.